Latest news with #PieAct
The Citizen
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
Illegal land grabs prompt a rethink of the Pie Act
A piece of legislation introduced in the post-apartheid years to prevent eviction abuses is now being weaponised against property owners. There's righteous indignation about the impact of the Expropriation Act's enfeeblement of property rights in SA, but far more damaging is the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (Pie) Act, initially introduced in 1998 to prevent the kind of eviction abuses so prevalent under apartheid. That same legislation has been weaponised against property owners, including the state, by making it difficult, sometimes impossible, to evict unlawful occupiers. Eviction proceedings can drag on for years and cost hundreds of thousands of rands, often leaving property owners with steep rehabilitation expenses. Many simply give up. In some instances, illegal occupiers have been in place for more than a decade with the blessing of the courts. The Joburg High Court in January 2024 refused to evict illegal occupiers in the inner-city area of Doornfontein despite evidence that the buildings were a fire hazard. The court ruled there was no imminent danger to the properties, nor was the City of Joburg able to offer the occupants alternative accommodation, as required under the Pie Act. The illegal occupiers have been in the buildings since 2001, successfully resisting eviction attempts which commenced in 2011. The above court decision came just months after a fire at the five-storey Usindiso building in Marshalltown, Joburg, killed 77 people. A few months before that, a fire broke out in the Florence Nightingale building in Hillbrow, killing two children who had been locked up in a room with no means of escape. ALSO READ: 90 families in Madibeng face imminent eviction In both these cases, criminals had hijacked the buildings and rented out rooms to some of the city's most desperate people. They are the pawns in a high-octane tussle between property owners and criminal gangs who have learned to game the Pie Act, often egged on by political agitators keen to grab attention whenever the cameras are around. Property associations have for years criticised the Pie Act for its perverse consequences, saying it protects criminals who sell other people's land and makes evictions extremely difficult, if not impossible. Municipalities struggling to provide basic water and lights can simply not contend with the demands of the Pie Act by providing alternative accommodation to illegal occupiers. The City of Joburg suspended its obligations to provide temporary emergency accommodation to illegal occupiers during the Covid lockdowns. It has just 11 temporary emergency accommodation facilities, all of which are full, with a need for a further 1 500 beds. It will take years and massive budget allocations, which the city does not have, just to provide these extra beds. ALSO READ: 'Illegal occupation': Standerton residents turn to ConCourt to stop evictions Tygerberg Raceway story A recent documentary, The Tygerberg Raceway story, explains how criminals took advantage of the Covid shutdowns to incite a mass land invasion of the Tygerberg Raceway, knowing that the police were overstretched and the courts were in lockdown. Just this year, police and correctional officers were caught selling other people's land in Fort Jackson near East London at R50 000 a plot. Farmers across the country have had to beef up security to prevent fallow land turning into an overnight settlement. All of this comes at a cost which is difficult to quantify. The better-run municipalities have security units dedicated to snuffing out illegal shack developments the moment they appear. A delay of a day or two allows the occupants to invoke tenant rights under the Pie Act. Then you are in for a drawn-out court battle at a considerable cost, with no guarantee of a successful eviction. Moneyweb previously reported on SA's best-run municipality, Midvaal, which has outsourced the patrolling of its municipal areas to the Red Ants. Criminals have attempted to infiltrate and occupy land, but these attempts have been successfully defended. Other municipalities with sufficient resources have been forced to adopt similar defensive measures. ALSO READ: Mogale landowners push council to use its eviction by-law against land invasions An amendment on its way? The Democratic Alliance (DA) has proposed an amendment to the Pie Act that would criminalise the incitement and organisation of unlawful occupations, even where no payment is received or solicited. This will combat instances where land grabs are orchestrated to further political agendas. Under the proposed amendments, courts will be required to consider the financial means of the illegal occupiers. They must specify the duration for which alternative accommodation or land must be provided in line with available resources. This, says the DA, will end municipalities' indefinite obligation to provide alternative housing. It should also expedite the eviction process. The Referendum Party in the Western Cape has taken a different approach to the same problem by proposing a Provincial Prevention of Illegal Evictions Bill, restricted to the Western Cape, which will draw a clear legal distinction between persons who took up residence legally and those who did so illegally. 'It would allow local and provincial government and private landowners to remove persons from their property where those persons have not at any point had permission or the legal authority to occupy that land,' says the party's website. ALSO READ: Eviction looms for long-time Emalahleni informal settlement residents Constitutional rights The courts have extended Constitutional rights not to be arbitrarily evicted from your lawful home to include those who have no such legal rights to your property. This proposed bill would clarify the definition of a home as a structure occupied by someone with the landowner's permission. If not, the illegal occupier can be removed without a court order and without the municipality having to provide alternative accommodation. The Department of Human Settlements appears to support some of the DA's proposed reforms and has committed to a full review of the existing act with a view to a department-led amendment bill by March 2026. If it succeeds, that would be a milestone in restoring at least some property rights in SA. Comments Greg Vermaak of law firm VMW Inc, which deals with numerous cases of illegal occupation: 'Pie is largely procedural, so an amendment to the act is unlikely to have much impact. If I'm a landowner and people grab land belonging to me, the state allows this to happen because there's nowhere to rehouse the illegal occupants, and that's a conscious decision. I now believe it's deliberate. It's a usurpation of land which the state could but won't fix.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
SowetanLIVE
23-04-2025
- Politics
- SowetanLIVE
SCA rules for evicted reclaimers that they have a right to earn a living
To do this work, which was their sole source of income, the occupiers had built shacks on the Midrand property, where they resided with their families. The City had identified a site at Kya Sands informal settlement as the relocation destination acceptable to the City and occupiers in 2022. 'However, the City imposed a condition for relocation to Kya Sands, that the occupiers would not be allowed to conduct their waste picking activities on the identified site.' The occupiers objected to that condition, leading to the high court ordering that the occupiers' new temporary accommodation allow them to store their goods. On appeal, the City argued that the 'right to earn a living' was essentially a 'commercial interest' and was not relevant to the determination of what was just and equitable in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (Pie Act). The City also said the Pie Act did not afford an unlawful occupier the right to choose where they wished to live, upon eviction. It also said the collection, sorting and storing of material from waste by the occupiers was an unlawful activity, as it was conducted in an area zoned 'special', contrary to the relevant zoning regulations. The occupiers submitted that the eviction would not be just and equitable if it did not take into account their means of earning a living. They needed to be relocated close to areas which created high value waste for them to collect, store and sell extracted recyclable material to the recycling companies. They also contended that the City had an obligation to act reasonably, as the right to earn a living was a component of the right to dignity. In its judgment, the SCA said the City's view was contradicted by a letter dated September 26 2022, from the city's attorneys, addressed to Seri Law Clinic, which represented the occupiers. The letter stated that: 'The City has endeavoured (as an indulgence to your clients) to find TEA (temporary emergency accommodation) that would cater for your client's needs. In this respect, and coincidentally, erf 128 Kya Sands is situated next to a recycling facility.' Mothle said both the SCA and the Constitutional Court have recognised that the right of occupiers to earn a living was a relevant factor to be considered by a court in terms of the Pie Act. Mothle said the City misconstrued the conduct of the occupiers as recyclers, when in effect, they were reclaimers who collected and sold waste material to recyclers for re-use. 'Second, the City sought to rely on the municipal zoning as prohibiting the sorting and storing of waste material, when it does not do so. 'Third, the City's condition is not supported by any law or policy and is thus arbitrary, irrational [and] unreasonable. In the circumstances, the appeal must fail,' Mothle said. TimesLIVE
